If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Unfortunately for us we'll continue to have to read Clydeandthepearl grind the sh*t out his proverbial axe; the same one he's been at since he got to the forum.

You know why I'm grinding? I watch this team nightly and cant come up with a rhyme or reason why Mike D does some of the things he does. Its insanity. He does the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome against teams with size. We're getting abused in the paint. But he continues to try to outscore teams with a small lineup.

Yea but how can you say he has no use for defensive minded bigs when he plays Turiaf regularly.. Common dude seriously??

I cant decipher this because Turiaf is injured so often. But, when he leaves the game and we're getting abused in the paint he puts in a 6/9 shooter (Williams) in the game. Matching him up against post players. Not a good move...

I cant decipher this because Turiaf is injured so often. But, when he leaves the game and we're getting abused in the paint he puts in a 6/9 shooter (Williams) in the game. Matching him up against post players. Not a good move...

What do mean height means nothing?? Isn't that the point of Clydeandthepearl's bellyaching?

Secondly I was arguing a specific point w C&TP. He said Mike D doesn' play guys who are over 6'8''. All I did was post clear evidence that is not the case..

And you find fault w that?? SMH

You can't win. Because the game and it's goal post will keep changing each as you make your way through points.

Which means that a personal dislike for D'ant and emotional reliance on railing against him for a notion of playing defense, takes precedent over actuality; including the actual issues we do have on defense, and any real issues that exist with D'ant.

Occasionally, randomness will have it that real problems w him and the team align with the static dislike/emotion. But even then, it's fruitless because the actuality matters less than the reliance on the personal grudge and emotion.

All this talk about players above 6'8, eg; MD never playing big men; never giving youth who can play D a chance; only playing offensive players at direct expense of viable guys who can play D; that we don't want defense or rebounding and *any* good Center is useless for us (ostensibly, bc Darko and Jordan Hill didn't lead us to the playoffs and Mike D'antoni didn't personally lobotomize Anthony Randolph and have him playing like a quality NBA playe this season).

What does it mean that D'ant disgruntles and defies people's wishes; yet his success and our actual progress this season has transcended all expectations, even his most rabid skeptics?

I guess being one of the worst teams in the league at giving up points is good in your eyes.

We could argue about fg % allowed or points per shot, but in a system in which the shot clock rarely goes down to 15 or below in our offense and opponents usually cannot resist running with us, how can you even think of points allowed as a benchmark? It just does not make sense at all. If the shot volume is about 15% above average, it would be insanely good defense to hold an opponent even at league average.

We could argue about fg % allowed or points per shot, but in a system in which the shot rarely goes down to 15 or below in our offense and opponents usually cannot resist running with us, how can you even think of points allowed as a benchmark? It just does not make sense at all. If the shot volume is about 15% above average, it would be insanely good defense to hold an opponent even at league average.

Exactly. You can't hold a team under a hundred regularly when you average close to 120. Not gonna say it's impossible. But, it's pretty close to impossible.
Real heads know this.

I see what Clyde's point is. Turiaf can't shoot, but he flows well with the offense, because he moves well without the ball, and runs a pretty good pick n roll. Randolph? Ball stopper, and bad shot taker. Curry? Fat, slow, ball stopper. Thats why they dont play. Moz also plays well in the system, but he is playing scared. Once he slows down, he well be an asset.

Point differential is all that matters most. I keep saying it in game threads when same ppl complain even after wins.

What we happen to score or what our opponent happens to score is arbitrary.

I wonder if it would get the same reaction if we had an extra-ordinary defensive system, and won games 85-80 much of the time, with a league-worst type of offense.

I don't think it would beget as much misunderstanding and conflict. Mainly bc there's an emotional nostalgia and ingrained sentiment in sports that defense is the always unsung hero and true seasoned sports fans know this.

We could argue about fg % allowed or points per shot, but in a system in which the shot clock rarely goes down to 15 or below in our offense and opponents usually cannot resist running with us, how can you even think of points allowed as a benchmark? It just does not make sense at all. If the shot volume is about 15% above average, it would be insanely good defense to hold an opponent even at league average.

Oh, I agree for the most part. But playing players that have no shot at stopping bigs down low is a major cause in us giving up so many points in the paint. Which also has us ranked in the bottom half on defense. We have absolutely no resistance when Mike D goes small. We'll win some games like this, but we'll never win the ultimate prize.